DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the calculation means" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the calculation means” will be interpreted as “a calculation means”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to the statutory class of a process or apparatus.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A soundness evaluation apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
select, from pieces of displacement information indicating displacement amounts of a plurality of measurement points included in a region including a structural object, displacement information regarding a range set in the structural object, based on a preset period and the range;
calculate an index representing a correlation based on the displacement information regarding the range in the period and environmental information indicating a state of an environment surrounding the range; and
generate determination condition to be used for evaluating soundness of the structural object based on a plurality of the calculated indices.
The limitations underlined can be considered to describe a mental process and mathematical concept, namely a process to calculate a relationship between the displacement and environment of a structural object and to create a condition to be used in determining to state of the structural object.
The additional limitations of “displacement information” and “environmental information” only determines what information is to be used in the soundness evaluation abstract idea, as such they do not amount to more than the abstract idea itself.
The additional limitations of “at least one memory” and “at least one processor” do not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)).
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2A, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 7 and 8 are analogous to claim 1. Claim 8 additionally recites “non-transitory computer readable recording medium”. This additional element is separate from the abstract idea that needs to be considered at Prong 2 of the 101 analysis. However, this additional element is merely a generic computer processing component that is invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Claims 7 and 8 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
Dependent Claims 2-6 are similarly ineligible. Dependent Claim 2 adds the recited “calculates a first index… and a second index”, “calculates a statistical value”, and “evaluate soundness” to the abstract idea limitations discussed above. Dependent Claim 3 adds the recited “calculates a third index” and “calculates the statistical value” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 4 adds the recited “calculates a first index”, “calculates fourth indices”, “generates the determination condition”, and “evaluates soundness” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 5 adds the recited “calculates a fifth index” and “calculates the statistical value” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 6 adds the recited “mathematical model” to the abstract idea limitations.
None of these dependent claims recite any further additional elements which would cause the claim as a whole to integrate the recited abstract idea into a particular practical application at Prong 2, or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea at Step 2B. Claims 2-6 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shota (JP 2021117007 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Shota teaches a soundness evaluation apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (Para 29: “memory such as ROM or RAM”); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (Para 29: “a processor such as a CPU”):
select, from pieces of displacement information indicating displacement amounts of a plurality of measurement points included in a region including a structural object (Para 20: “One or more "observation points" are set in the object”),
displacement information regarding a range set in the structural object, based on a preset period and the range (Para 21: “The positioning of the observation point is performed periodically, and the displacement of the observation point is determined from the positioning results” The examiner notes that the one or more observation points form a range in the structural object.);
calculate an index representing a correlation based on the displacement information regarding the range in the period and environmental information indicating a state of an environment surrounding the range (Para 44: “Once the original displacement values for each observation point are obtained, the correction value calculation means 302 (Figure 1) calculates a temperature correction value” and “the correction value calculation means 302 reads the correction function from the correction function storage means 309 and the ambient temperature from the ambient temperature storage means 310, and substitutes the ambient temperature, which is an explanatory variable, into the correction function to obtain the temperature displacement amount, i.e., the temperature correction value”. The examiner notes that the ambient temperature is environmental information of the state surrounding the range. The examiner notes that the correction function is interpreted as representing a correlation between ambient temperature and displacement (see Fig. 6). The examiner notes that the temperature correction value, which is calculated with the correction function, ambient temperature, and displacement information, is interpreted as an index.); and
generate determination condition to be used for evaluating soundness of the structural object based on a plurality of the calculated indices (Para 45: “Once the corrected displacement amounts for each observation point are obtained, the degree of deterioration of the object can be evaluated by the deterioration evaluation means”).
Regarding Claim 7, the limitations of claim 7 are analogous to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, Shota teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to carry out (Para 29: “memory such as ROM”). The remaining limitations of claim 8 are analogous to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shota in view of Kusaka (US 20190212223 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Shota teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Shota further teaches wherein the one or more processors further: calculates a first index in a first range set in a first structural object (Para 44: “Once the original displacement values for each observation point are obtained, the correction value calculation means 302 (Figure 1) calculates a temperature correction value”)
calculates a statistical value
generates the determination condition based on the calculated statistical value (Para 45: “Once the corrected displacement amounts for each observation point are obtained, the degree of deterioration of the object can be evaluated by the deterioration evaluation means”), and
the soundness evaluation apparatus further comprises evaluate soundness of the first range based on the first index and the determination condition (Para 45: “set thresholds in stages beforehand and evaluate the degree of deterioration of the object in stages according to the amount of corrected displacement”).
However Shota does not explicitly teach a second index in each second range, in the first structural object, that has a structure similar to a structure of the first range.
Kusaka teaches calculates
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Shota with the method of Kusaka by applying the temperature correction calculation and statistical analysis of Shota to a second location as taught by Kusaka. The temperature correction and statistical analysis of Shota applied to the second locations of Kusaka would result in a second index in each second range. Doing so would improve the determination of deterioration by analyzing multiple locations.
Regarding Claim 3, Shota in view of Kusaka teach the limitations of claim 2, and Shota in view of Kusaka further teaches wherein the one or more processors further:
calculates a third index in the first range in a second period prior to a first period to be subjected to a soundness evaluation (Para 14: “reading positioning data from the positioning data storage means within a predetermined time period preceding the positioning time”. The examiner notes that the predetermined time period preceding the positing time is interpreted as “a second period prior to a first period”. The examiner notes that the position data from this preceding time period is used to calculate displacement and deterioration), and
calculates the statistical value based on the third index and the plurality of second indices (Para 40: “estimate the positioning data while also considering the trends in positioning data during a predetermined period preceding the time of observation” and “the sample representative value calculation means 306 estimates the positioning data at the observation time by performing various statistical processing, such as simply averaging the corrected sample n or applying a weighted average that assigns weights from the most recent observation time”), and
generates the determination condition based on the statistical value (Para 45: “Once the corrected displacement amounts for each observation point are obtained, the degree of deterioration of the object can be evaluated by the deterioration evaluation means”).
Regarding Claim 4, Shota teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Shota further teaches wherein the one or more processors further: calculates a first index in a first range set in a first structural object (Para 44: “Once the original displacement values for each observation point are obtained, the correction value calculation means 302 (Figure 1) calculates a temperature correction value”),
generates the determination condition
the soundness evaluation apparatus further comprises, evaluate soundness of the first range based on the first index and the determination condition (Para 45: “set thresholds in stages beforehand and evaluate the degree of deterioration of the object in stages according to the amount of corrected displacement”).
However Shota does not explicitly teach calculates fourth indices in respective third ranges, in a plurality of second structural objects similar to the first structural object, that have a structure similar to that of the first range.
Kusaka teaches fourth
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Shota with the method of Kusaka by applying the temperature correction calculation and statistical analysis of Shota to a second structure as taught by Kusaka. The temperature correction and statistical analysis of Shota applied to the second structure of Kusaka would result in a fourth index in respective third ranges. Doing so would improve the determination of deterioration by analyzing multiple structures.
Regarding Claim 5, Shota in view of Kusaka teach the limitations of claim 4, and Shota further teaches wherein the one or more processors further:
calculates a fifth index in the first range in a second period prior to the first period to be subjected to soundness evaluation (Para 14: “reading positioning data from the positioning data storage means within a predetermined time period preceding the positioning time”. The examiner notes that the predetermined time period preceding the positing time is interpreted as “a second period prior to a first period”. The examiner notes that the position data from this preceding time period is used to calculate displacement and deterioration), and
calculates a statistical value based on the fourth indices and a plurality of fifth indices (Para 40: “estimate the positioning data while also considering the trends in positioning data during a predetermined period preceding the time of observation” and “the sample representative value calculation means 306 estimates the positioning data at the observation time by performing various statistical processing, such as simply averaging the corrected sample n or applying a weighted average that assigns weights from the most recent observation time”), and
generates the determination condition based on the calculated statistical value (Para 45: “Once the corrected displacement amounts for each observation point are obtained, the degree of deterioration of the object can be evaluated by the deterioration evaluation means”).
Regarding Claim 6, Shota in view of Kusaka teach the limitations of claim 2, and Shota further teaches wherein the calculation means creates a mathematical model representing displacement information (Para 15: “correction function calculation method calculates a correction function by performing a regression analysis based on observed ambient temperature values for more than one year and observed temperature displacement values of an object for more than one year”)
selected by the selection means regarding the range in the period (Para 33: “Furthermore, by acquiring ambient temperature observations and temperature displacement observations over a period of more than one year, it is possible to calculate four different correction functions for each season (spring, summer, autumn, and winter), or to calculate multiple different types of correction functions”), and
calculates the first index using the mathematical model (Para 44: “Once the original displacement values for each observation point are obtained, the correction value calculation means 302 (Figure 1) calculates a temperature correction value”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chaudhury (US 20200284576 A1) teaches determining the degradation state of a structure by measuring displacement in a plurality of target regions in the structure (Abstract).
Takamori (US 20180180511 A1) teaches determining soundness by comparing a first structure to a second structure that is similar to the first structure (Para 12).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODGER MENSING whose telephone number is (571)270-0129. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODGER STEWART MENSING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights